Last week, two different federal courts slapped injunctions on Trump’s tariffs on countries across the globe. It’s not the first time Trump has lost in court, but these two rulings against the president may be the most consequential yet.
Both cases dealt with the numerous tariffs the president has imposed—and in some cases paused, then reimposed—on goods from countries all over the world, including his across-the-board 10 percent “Liberation Day” tariffs and his higher, country-specific “reciprocal” tariffs on 57 different nations. Both courts ruled almost all of Trump’s tariffs unlawful.
If these rulings stand (both have been stayed pending appeal) they will cut off at the knees Trump’s international economic strategy and take away his chief bargaining chip with other countries. They may also force the government to pay more than $60 billion in refunds of tariff revenues already collected.
Trump responded furiously, lashing out at the “Radical Left Judges” threatening to “destroy” the country and deprive it of “trillions” of dollars. “Is it purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP?’ What other reason could it be?” Trump posted on Truth Social. Presumably because one of the judges was appointed by Trump himself, the president asserted he had been misled in his first term into following the judicial-nomination advice of Leonard Leo, a leader of the Federalist Society, whom Trump now denounced as a “sleazebag” who “probably hates America.”
On the other hand, the rulings seemed to relieve the stock market and were defended by some constitutional scholars who saw the decisions as a victory for the separation of powers.
But did the judges get it right? I don’t think so.